Author Topic: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?  (Read 4325 times)

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 402
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2021, 09:20:15 PM »
Sorry am unclear.  i did pound this stuff inside self, alone, quietly in trees (in earplugged silences of real focus) into just short hand bullet points; in own world and language stolen from many things, as eyes watched fingers dance out the form; as like both worker and harsh inspector in one; naming out points to groom to best model.
Things i bring back down to show tho, are what i L-earned to follow models of AND could not prove wrong as tested that direction much too trying to break own theories etc.
All tends to flood out the same bullet points type, as i unpack, decompress from inside and is so native to me, reads right...
So, started drawing; a long road in itself.
.

**********************************
Cosine examination was meant for support vs controls model etc. not this part of what i wrote of compounding forces in pulley systems, simpler model of ROPE direction as benchmark cosine doesn't cover all like FORCE direction as benchmark cosine model.
.
In all this i try to show the math is right there, like the maple coursing thru, each waiting to be tapped purpose-fully or breakout by any other means(accidental conjuring against self etc. included ) .
i try to watch those inside forces, squinting hard past chirality of skin etc. as visual guides but distracting eye from the force patterns within i try to chase.
Understanding forces are commanding serves as tying and grooming aid much better to me, actually; and more side benefits.
.
Years sitting in tree climber's DdRT of 2/1 against own weight like dumbwaiter contemplating what was going and sifted out principle/keys to re-use equal and opposite force to double effort in a closed system, then also used bodyWeight as ballast not load, but rather bodyWeight against another load to lift/tighten, id'd simply needed class1 lever(pivot between input and output: pulley or seesaw) to capture the equal/opposite direction of effort to fold back again against target with raw effort itself and then add body weight to whichever side of that system that worked against target; so took theory to rolling levers/pulley system, then defined same to rigid lever /seesaw types, wheels/valves then back to pulley system compounding 3x on 2x to get 16x in EITHER lift up or compress down + compounded bodyweight ballasting.  All by distilling out the root/pivotal force math and exploiting it as it funneled out from the simplest instance to other systems .   In the end, really, really the only way to work when you can ! This is 1 example why so adamant about drilling to root principle then fanning out more fluently to where that power can be used.  And so work other things the same way, drill to root cause and then command back out thru patterns and their compounding's.
.
As i try to show to recursively use the same effort force w/o any more effort, by also inputting the Equal & Opposite of the force into the equation at potent position.  This 'simply' fiddles with the rules like playful child to compounding the normal patterns against them own selves, as found in Chinese Windlass / differential .  Showing these rules/principles are so pervasive; they trace around counter-intuitive turns in this recursion and maintain same consist rule even where would seem crazy.  Kinda hard to disprove something so consistent when question it i have found!
This is the hidden prize, that was/is always there, strategically inventorying and collecting bodyweight, effort and Equal & Opposite of effort and focusing all against target.
i find that to be a GAME CHANGER, principle especially usable by climber helping to preTighten rig lines/take out slop (even as a 2xLegLift + bodyWeight pre tighten), and only person in that position to do so.  This truly becomes like orchestration of martial arts move , more than just a slap across with force.  Just by following the rules/patterns. Last pic shown in other post linked shows taking this to a round wheel etc. around central pivot as class1 effect even.  i found so much, so many powerful working advantages on this chase, just performing the same single pivotal procedure, just cloaked in different forms/clothes !  A real pareto investment (because can pare to keys i think..)
.
Principle compounded thru standard pulley systems:




« Last Edit: June 15, 2021, 09:21:26 PM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2021, 02:45:09 AM »
Hello KC,

Thank you for your post.

I would like to point out that I think you are diverting John's (JRB) topic post away from his hitch.
You may well feel that your posts about mechanical advantage are advancing John's hitch or making a contribution in some way.

Realistically, you should start a new topic post - and title it as 'Mechanical advantage systems'. Although, pure M.A. systems are also moving away from the grass roots of why this forum exists - which is to discuss knots and the art of knotting. Unless of course you are discussing poldo tackles and other M.A. systems that require knots/hitches to function.

You should not take offense from my post - my words are not intended to cause harm or offense to you.
I know you are passionate about the things you write - and that's a good thing.

It would be good if you could channel your passion in a way that more directly contributes to John's hitch.

...

Very brief critique of your M.A. diagrams:
The M.A. systems depicted at reply #15 - specifically the 2 images in the top row - at right side:
I think there is a typo error. These systems (as configured) are 4:1 where you show a red hand.
Also, the diagram at top right with the pink rope - at the top of the system there is x5 multiplication of force (not x8).
These 2 M.A. systems are analogous to the 'AZTEK' from Rock Exotica in the USA.
The 'AZTEK' can be configured as 4:1 or 5:1 depending on orientation.
Link to AZTEK: https://www.rockexotica.com/aztek

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 402
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2021, 10:06:06 AM »
Very sorry; just trying to keep up, but this is a passion.
This is all rope work to me, knot tying is just a set of rope mechanix,
all rope mechanix are different facetted examples of the same principles, all related examples of each other.
When i make a knot, i make a machine, just as these pulley systems; only they are dynamic/move like Trucker's, Poldo, Parbuckle etc.
.
Very specifically, the whole definition of the last pic is that same pink rope of what trying to show as miracle game changer if can tap into the force pattern correctly..... The 2nd hand of the DUAL INPUT can be another person added pull, but is just the E&O force 'reflection' instead !
The system with a 1 hand pull in normal use would yield 5xCompress down or 4xLift up up to limit of bodyweight w/o other pulls.
>>Bodyweight hang does this as input at blue hand hang, for all that hand could pull anyway.
>>from that HANGING position if pull with red hand upward, autonomously must now also pull down matching amount on blue hand as E&O/ adding even more to bodyweight input essentially.  So for compression down, the blue hand is at 5x input position and the red hand as it 3x input position for 8xEffort part.  Just as cant pull up on same point stand on a scale, w/o scale increasing weight shown....
To the left of that last pic in top row post#15 is red hand insertion point of force alone for 3xCompress / 4x lift that still pulls on system same in last pic in that row w/pink rope giving system standard 5xCompress down or 4xLift up for effort and bodyweight as input point.
Collectively 8xEffort compress or lift + Bodyweight x (5xCompress down or 4xLift up).
Just as can't pull down on dynamic leg of DdRT to lift self w/o making self that much lighter autonomously for the 2/1 effect against own weight.  Only here, make self heavier, not lighter as the secondary response from E&O.  Other rope work just mechanical patters as well to me; or at least that is what i reach for.
.
Increasing the input from single hand pull, to this system w/leg lift as input rather than arm pull, and that leg force IMPACTED in hard + added nominal bodyweight into the larger multipliers for compress or lift is the way to go, if can orchestrate it !

This can make much work easier, as more powerfully asserting rescue as well; both with same effort input

*****************************************

Similarly see, simple reading correctly and then aligning to command as can rope parts to be best seen as simple patterns invoked, strung together as if in electrical schematic.  Only rope is the separate utility parts and then fluidly linking device all in one.  Physical space displacements and physical force displacements tracked/calc'd more by cosine, sine, frictions tools not volts, amps, resistances tools.  But each just ported force thru specific utility principles/parts.

i kinda prefer not blindly setting of cosine/sine by vertical or horizontal tho in what we's do; as too static/not lending to setup/scenario as cleanly , simply and fluidly.  Cosine so common place to me if walking /driving forward and someone is in my way, i think in terms of they are in my cosine; then same with rope example it's direction at any point as cosine in simpler model.  To this model cosine is the work, and sine another co$t incurred to do same work; that can try to leverage a usable return utility from as well.  Simply more deflection from pure align causes more work as less efficient, and also incurs sine.  Kinda kid for mnemonic  that cosine is to my cos(cause), and then sin(e) across also carried, that try to get return on also if can sometimes.  Kinda even sounds political !  Or offer co(lum)sine (column of force or support response against) vs. sine as a reference mnemonic .  Anyway, i set cosine as an initial benchmark specific to situation, at a Naturally occurring 1D reference of scenario, when can.
.
i try to find a 1Dimensional reference axis in model/event to benchmark simpler cosine from to start(rather than static vert/horiz strictly), then it's non of sine is any other direction off that single dimension simple line/axis benchmarked.  Breaking out to powerless outside own domain/dimension as intersects with another domain of a separate Dimension  at 90 degrees influence across this benchmark line/cosine Zer0, but full sine in trade.  Rope , just is no different(in this respect).
This cosine benchmark can be a linear force or linear support column against said force/load for the benchmark cosine; all the same, as are related to other just the same from either point of view, just do the easiest!  This can be used as a parity/cross verification check to each other too.
.
Simpler by linear device model:
Cosine, is simplest force of 1D(imension); like rope study!
So pulls along this rope line length are along the cosine, supporting load directly; down length of line/internal rope pipe.
Pulls across/away from pure rope line then are sine, that may/if strong enough in correct direction allow seating to host yielding: friction, nips and in opposing multiples grips. opposing multiples would be sine vs. sine of opposing directions in ropeParts into host then, still more nominal effect.
So look at in this modelling : cosine as support and sine as tools to control (that support).
Separate utility functions support/control, empowered by separate sources: antagonists cosine and sine respectively.
This changes tho in magic of 180arc; then can use the major load imposed cosine AND the usual reflected lesser force sine for friction, nips, nominal grips(in extended force as cosine model) and in opposing multiples compounding grips as load controls.  180arc is a GAME CHANGER, even more so in multiples; especially the first 3x180 dimensionally on host.
.
Radial vs Linear in  force, structure, path etc. ALWAYS matter.  If the conducting/transferring device/medium is round and linear force input, must calc cosine by linear force input then in model i think, not so much set cosine benchmark by round device:
. (link)
A linear has angles of unequal forces, and so a singular , unique peak cosine; the round does not/has all equal force translation around(in force imposed or support against).
Would set Cosine to linear force direction; receiving coin on other side pure inline gets cosine 1.00x resultant force
>>if receiving coin is offset  6 degrees ( 1 minute on clock) from centerline of input  cosine drop to ~.99x resultant potential on clock cosine quick calc try to show.
>>Get motion all the way around when touching other coin on opposing 180arc side of transfer coin; motion output reducing until Zer0 movement (from same input imposed/hit)only at 90 to either side of input force, @Zer0 cosine multiplier of the resultant force transfer potential...
Force pulse thru rope about same imagery; except using a  tension only conductor/medium/device transferring the force volume pulse; and sine usable for or against as next step expansion of transfer principle to me.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2021, 11:39:14 AM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2021, 10:32:31 AM »
Hello KC;
Which part of your post at reply #17 directly relates to John's hitch?
This is not intended as an insult - it is simply a question!

For example:
Quote
i kinda prefer not blindly setting of cosine/sine by vertical or horizontal tho in what we's do; as too static/not lending to setup/scenario as cleanly , simply and fluidly.  Cosine so common place to me if walking /driving forward and someone is in my way, i think in terms of they are in my cosine; then same with rope example it's direction at any point as cosine in simpler model.
Your use of trigonometric functions to explain mechanical advantage is difficult to follow without a valid reference frame. I've never conceptualized an M.A. system in terms of driving and having someone get in my way - and then labeling that as 'cosine'.
Also, I am struggling to understand how this narrative relates to John's hitch?
John was simply pointing out that the unused leg of his hitch could be employed to build a simple M.A. system. John tried to keep his explanation simple and easy to understand... but did not detract from his main theme - which is the hitch.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2021, 10:33:48 AM by agent_smith »

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 402
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2021, 11:49:28 AM »
As once again to me is all rope work science.
And was answering questions about our friend cosine in a previous post of yours i thought actually.
The Ancients tried to show cosine/sine as keys to all physical displacements of space or force, that this falls into.
Cosine is just a straight line, i just pick that reference from something in scenario : direction of travel, support column etc.
Rather than arbitrability picking something outside the scenario as cosine benchmark to judge all else by as classically done.
Driving, so much re-affirms these lessons in a common activity of force, travel and  direction.
.
i really like the Saddle Hunter Hitch, but not the angle of pull asserted to it parallel to host/ down the trunk.
Hitch itself has plenty of 180arcs and then pulls along SPart with a 1D grip of opposing arcs, rather than shearing across the SPart with 1x180.  i look at the arcs as presented on SPart as a linear list/gauntlet of arcs, as opposed to arcs usually radially listed on separate host.  Linear list of arcs models most well in a rappel rack imagery, and pulls along rope like splice, not shears across like a hook at 90degrees pull across SPart etc.
.
BUT, the angle of pull on host is a different matter.  There is not a strong seating to host on this side, just the double bearing on the reverse /off side.  More Basket like than Choker like framework w/o the 4legs of support.
i characterize the difference by defining each has double bearing on host as ABoK speaks of.  Giving 4 legs served from opposing/off side.  Basket gets 4x1D supports without strong 1D grip(s) on host, Choker forsakes 2 support legs to Load for getting the seating on Load side to give 2x1D support and 2D grip on host from the 4 legs.
A Basket may jam into taking a 2D/lengthwise pull (1D grip across host + 1D pull along host);
But a choker more mechanically positively has the 2D framework to finesse more against the 2D pull mechanically , squarely.
Even with this ABoK warns not to expect the impossible at this WORST angle of pull with rope.

Saddle Hunter's is more of a Basket, than a Choker grab on host in this view, and hopes for a mechanic won't witness in ABoK chapter_22 dedicated to this worst angle of pull on host, even a rope column host for friction hitch.  Workable as a jam more than a clean architecture in Basket kind of grip with lengthwise/2D pull to me.
Seek simply to have loading pull in same geometry dimension as opposing support response.
Basket of 4x1D support; when load pull is 2D/lengthwise does not present this basic architecture to command this level of support.
.
Saddle Hunter only gives 1 or 2 legs support of the 4 from double bearing/2 separate turns on host.
As uses the other 2 legs to secure to SPart, not for Load support nor host grip.
Would always want to use ROUND metal part here, many carabiner spines are more flat, re-apportioning metal from the side to the do not pull open axis.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2021, 12:35:22 PM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

JRB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2021, 09:54:26 PM »
Team,
Although I have done a great deal of tying and testing, I have not had the luxury of a camera operator to get anything produced.  However, I did upload a public video describing how I fashion the basic variant of the hitch.  I appreciate the terminology lesson and made sure to get those points in the video.

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2021, 04:33:46 AM »
Hi 'JRB' (John),

Thanks for your video production - overall, its quite good.

Some quick feedback - all given in good faith.

People are very easily offended these days (for the slightest things) - so please understand I am not trying to offend you or to be insulting!
Its just feedback to help you improve :)

Feedback:

[ ] at 0:55  There are 2 distinct types of 'toggles' - 1) a closed toggle (such as you have demonstrated)  2) an open toggle (used for remote release)

[ ] at 1:10  The definition of 'TIB' is that the knot (or structure) can be tied without access to either end (you stated "a working end" - which is technically incorrect).

[ ] at 5:40  There is no 'bending force' on the carabiner. It is simply a crushing force on a small segment of the carabiner (the carabiner is not being levered, bent or loaded in a way that compromises it. An example of this would be a manual belay device such as an 'ATC' used in 'guide mode'. The carabiner used in 'guide mode' is not subject to a bending moment.

[ ] at 6:26  Here you identify the reason why your hitch is valuable or worth knowing. I would have placed this info up front near the start of your video. It draws the viewer in - so they have a reason to pay attention (ie what makes your hitch better than all the competitors?).


Keep up the good work!